Five Challenges facing President Obama

On his inauguration in 2009, Barack Obama inherited a massive headache from the GFC. With unemployment stubbornly above 9 percent, efforts to create new jobs have so far proved futile.

  • Low interest rates from the Fed failed to stimulate new investment. Richard Koo coined the phrase balance-sheet recession to describe private sector reaction to a financial crisis. Low interest rates have as much effect as pushing on a string. Corporations and households alike have no wish to borrow in the face of falling asset prices and erosion of their own balance sheets — and banks have little desire to lend.
  • Quantitative easing failed to lower long-term interest rates and stimulate employment. Instead it revived inflation expectations, creating a surge in commodity prices.
  • The trade deficit widened despite the falling dollar, reflecting an inability of US exports to compete in offshore markets — and a loss of manufacturing jobs as foreign exporters made inroads into US domestic markets.
  • Fiscal stimulus, whether through tax cuts or spending on education or infrastructure not only failed to create sustainable jobs but has left the taxpayer with a mountain of public debt.
  • The home construction industry, a major employer, remains stagnant. Inventories of new and existing homes amount to more than 12 months sales at current rates — when one includes “shadow inventory” of homes repossessed, in foreclosure, or with mortgages delinquent for 90 days or more.

Deflation threat
When the housing bubble collapsed, households and corporates were threatened by falling values and shrinking credit. Savings increased and were used to repay debt rather than channeled through the financial system into new capital investment. A deflationary gap opened up between income and spending: repaying debt does not generate income as new capital investment does. The gap may appear small but, like air escaping from a punctured tire, can cause significant damage to overall income levels as it replays over and over through the economy. The only way to plug the gap is for government to spend more than it collects by way of taxes, but the result is a sharp increase in public debt.

Five point plan
Companies are unwilling to commence hiring until consumption increases — and consumption is unlikely to increase until employment levels rise. The only solution is to create sustainable jobs while minimizing borrowing against future tax revenues.

  1. Stop importing capital and exporting jobs.
    Japan and China have effectively maintained a trade advantage against the US by investing more than $2.3 trillion in US Treasuries. The inflow of funds on capital account acts to suppress their exchange rate, effectively pegging it against the greenback. Imposition of trade penalties would result in tit-for-tat retaliation that could easily escalate into a trade war. Capital flows, however, are already tightly controlled by China and others, so retaliation to capital account controls would be meaningless. Phased introduction of a withholding tax on foreign investments would discourage further capital inflows and encourage gradual repatriation of existing balances over time. Reciprocal access to capital markets could then be negotiated through individual tax treaties.
  2. Clear excess housing inventories.
    Supporting prices at current levels through low interest rates will prevent the market from clearing excess inventory. Stimulating demand through home-buyer subsidies would achieve this but increases public debt and, as Australia discovered, leaves a “shadow” of weak demand if the subsidy is later phased out. Allowing home prices to fall, on the other hand, would clear excess inventory but threaten the banking sector. Shoring up failing banks also requires funding, although this could be recovered over time through increased deposit insurance.
  3. Increase infrastructure spending.
    Infrastructure projects should not be evaluated on the number of jobs created but on their potential to generate future revenue streams. Whether toll roads or national broadband networks, revenue streams can be used to repay public debt. Projects that generate market-related returns on investment also open up opportunities for private sector funding. Spending on education and community assets should not be funded with debt as they provide no viable revenue streams for repayment. The same goes for repairs and maintenance to existing infrastructure — they should be funded out of current tax revenues. Similarly, research and development of unproven technologies with open-ended budgets and uncertain future revenues.
  4. Raise taxes to fund infrastructure investment.
    Raising taxes to repay debt, as FDR discovered in 1937, has the same effect as a deflationary gap in the private sector and shrinks national output. But raising taxes to fund infrastructure investment leaves no deflationary gap and increases the overall level of capital investment — and job creation — within the economy.
  5. Increase austerity.
    Cutting back on government spending merely re-opens the deflationary gap between income and spending. Reducing regular spending in order to free up funds for infrastructure projects, however, would leave no deflationary gap while accelerating job creation within the economy.

Bi-partisan approach
The magnitude and extent of the problems facing the US require a truly bi-partisan approach, unsuited to the rough-and-tumble of a vibrant democracy. Generational changes are required whose impact will be felt long after the next election term. It will take true leadership to forge a broad consensus and set the US on a sound path for the future.

Published in the November issue of Charter magazine.

There goes the neighbourhood | Steve Keen’s Debtwatch

Housing credit increased by 0.5 per cent over September (see the RBA Release for details), but this involved a further deceleration of mortgage debt…..

….The most recent figures—that prices fell 1.2% over the June to September 2011 quarter, and 2.2% from September 2010 to September 2011 (see the ABS Release for details)—confirm that mortgage debt acceleration, and not “population pressure” etc., is the key determinant of house prices.

via There goes the neighbourhood | Steve Keen’s Debtwatch.

China will not ease up on realty – macrobusiness.com.au

Although there has been some noise about easing real estate curbs amid recent aggressive price cutting and subsequent protests, Li Daokui’s [academic advisor and member of the monetary policy committee of the People’s Bank of China] view is consistent with Premier Wen Jiabao’s view that curbs will be remain in place. He believes that economic growth will slow, and the growth model which relies on real estate development will end.

He added that inflation in China will probably fall from about 5.5% for this year to just 2.8% next year…..

via China will not ease up on realty – macrobusiness.com.au | macrobusiness.com.au.

Why the RBA should cut rates – macrobusiness.com.au

Nominal house prices are falling. Not collapsing, certainly. But falling very consistently, roughly 6% peak to trough. 8.5% in real terms. This has had a number of well documented effects including high savings rates, historically conservative levels of retail sales and stalled services sector investment.

…..Now, in August, the latest month for which we have data, coal and iron ore earned Australia $12 billion in export income. Assuming the price falls we have seen get no worse (or better), by the time new prices filter through the various contract systems, those same commodities will earn us roughly $9 billion in January next year (all things being equal with the currency).

via Why the RBA should cut rates – macrobusiness.com.au | macrobusiness.com.au.

China property developer warns on price falls – FT.com

China Vanke, the country’s biggest developer by market share, said government efforts over the past year to rein in soaring prices were having a severe impact on the market and developers were being squeezed after sales volumes in 14 of the country’s largest cities halved in September from a year earlier.

“We can see a trend of declining sales, especially in the major cities,” Shirley Xiao, executive vice-president at China Vanke, said on a conference call with investors on Tuesday. “Prices have begun to decline little by little so we think even buyers who are able to buy will choose to wait for now because they’re targeting even lower price cuts.”

via China property developer warns on price falls – FT.com.

Australia: How the CPI hid the housing bubble – On Line Opinion

We can combine the main areas where housing has been stricken from the CPI – the removal of mortgage costs, quality adjustments to rent, and reduction in weight to home ownership costs – to see what difference it would make had the pre-1998 methodology been continued. The resulting MacroStats cost-of-living index is plotted below against the headline CPI.

MacroStats Cost-of-living index

….We can again see how this measure tracks the official CPI very closely until 1998. Since 1998 it is 0.73 percentage points higher on average (or 3.8%), and in the period 2001-2008, it averaged 1.3 percentage points higher (or 4.4%pa). That gives you some idea of how significant the 1998 methodological shift in the CPI was in disguising housing inflation and creating a feedback loop with lower monetary policy.

via How the CPI hid the housing bubble – On Line Opinion – 20/10/2011.

We need to be wary of bodies like the RBA lobbying to change the composition of the CPI. Performance measurement has to be independent in order to be effective.

Regulators Seize Main PMI Subsidiary – WSJ.com

The main subsidiary of mortgage insurer PMI Group Inc. has been seized by insurance regulators in Arizona, and will begin paying just 50% of claims beginning Monday, according to its website…… Mortgage insurers have suffered from billions of dollars in losses on policies they sold in the years just before the housing bubble burst. PMI alone has reported about $3 billion in losses since the fourth quarter of 2007.

via Regulators Seize Main PMI Subsidiary – WSJ.com.

Ron Paul: “Blame The Fed For The Financial Crisis” | ZeroHedge

The Fed fails to grasp that an interest rate is a price—the price of time—and that attempting to manipulate that price is as destructive as any other government price control. It fails to see that the price of housing was artificially inflated through the Fed’s monetary pumping during the early 2000s, and that the only way to restore soundness to the housing sector is to allow prices to return to sustainable market levels. Instead, the Fed’s actions have had one aim—to keep prices elevated at bubble levels—thus ensuring that bad debt remains on the books and failing firms remain in business, albatrosses around the market’s neck.

The Fed’s quantitative easing programs increased the national debt by trillions of dollars. The debt is now so large that if the central bank begins to move away from its zero interest-rate policy, the rise in interest rates will result in the U.S. government having to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in additional interest on the national debt each year. Thus there is significant political pressure being placed on the Fed to keep interest rates low. The Fed has painted itself so far into a corner now that even if it wanted to raise interest rates, as a practical matter it might not be able to do so.

via Ron Paul: “Blame The Fed For The Financial Crisis” | ZeroHedge.

I agree that the Fed should not interfere with interest rates. It causes market imbalances that later lead to recessions and bubbles in stocks and housing and threaten the very survival of the banking system the Fed is trying to protect.

QE achieved the opposite of its stated objectives, raising long-term interest rates with lowering unemployment, but did not really increase the national debt by a dollar. Sales of  bonds by the Federal Treasury to the Federal Reserve is like the US government selling to itself. The Fed is just an off-balance sheet, special-purpose entity (think Enron, bank CDOs and other bad smells) created by  the government and banks in 1913 to  bypass restrictions in the Constitution on the issue of bank notes. In all but name it is a division of the US Treasury. The majority of the “independent” board of directors are political appointments. Ever seen a dissenting vote coming from one of the political appointees? Regional board members, where most dissenting votes come from, are a minority appointed by regional banks. They can dissent, but when it comes to counting the votes they’re outnumbered.